Board chair Yousef Rabhi and vice chair Alicia Ping. (Photos by the writer.)

After a lengthy and often heated debate, the board voted 5-4 to give initial approval to the notice, but postponed final action until July 10. Voting in favor of initial approval were Ping, Conan Smith, Dan Smith, Andy LaBarre and Kent Martinez-Kratz. Voting against the proposal were Yousef Rabhi, Ronnie Peterson, Rolland Sizemore Jr. and Felicia Brabec.

Ping noted that her goal isn’t necessarily to cut funding for the courts, but rather to be more transparent about where the money goes. The board could ultimately decide to leave the lump-sum approach in place. Giving a notice to terminate the agreement simply gives the board the option to end it.

Conan Smith, who has wrangled with court officials in the past on this issue, argued that the legislative branch is responsible for budgeting, and the board has abrogated that responsibility by agreeing to lump-sum funding. The board gives up far too much authority over line-item expenditures in exchange for “peace in the valley,” he said. “I want to see something different.” With a line-item approach, the county board could indicate priorities for the courts by allocating more funds to specific areas. Dan Smith also argued in favor of the action, noting that the courts are funded with essentially no oversight.

No court officials attended the June 5 meeting. The proposal had not been on the published agenda.

Ronnie Peterson argued most strongly against Ping’s proposal, fearing it would damage the board’s relationship with the courts. Peterson also felt the board itself hadn’t been very accountable regarding a $345 million bond proposal it’s considering. “So as we blast others, let’s prepare to take a few pellets ourselves,” he said. Rolland Sizemore Jr. warned that the board might be starting a fire that they couldn’t put out. He noted that if court officials decide to sue, the county would be required to pay the attorney fees.

Commissioners initially were set to take a final vote at the board meeting that same night – held immediately after the ways & means committee meeting. However, after a break between the two meetings, corporation counsel Curtis Hedger reported that the memorandum of understanding with the courts actually requires a 12-month notice, not the six months that had been discussed. This turned the opinion of some commissioners, who wanted to take more time to study the issue. Andy LaBarre, who chairs the board’s working session, offered to schedule the topic for a working session as soon as possible.

The motion to postpone final action passed on a 6-3 vote, with dissent from Alicia Ping, Dan Smith and Kent Martinez-Kratz. So the proposal will appear on the board’s July 10 agenda.

That July 10 meeting will also include action related to the county’s major bonding initiative to cover unfunded pension and retiree healthcare obligations, including a public hearing. The first public hearing for the potential $345 million bond proposal was held on June 5. It drew four people who all expressed caution about the possible action, with some suggesting a millage or additional budget cuts to cover the retiree obligations instead of bonding.

On June 5, commissioners also set other public hearings for July 10: (1) for two brownfield redevelopment projects in Ann Arbor – at Packard Square (the former Georgetown Mall), and 544 Detroit St.; and (2) for the annexation of industrial property from Scio Township into the village of Dexter. And the July 10 meeting will include final consideration of a strategic space plan for Washtenaw County government facilities totaling about $5 million. The proposals, which got initial approval on June 5, include creating a plan to redevelop the Platt Road site where the old juvenile center was located. The redevelopment might entail a mix of uses, including affordable housing.

A range of other items addressed on June 5 included: (1) creating an historic district for the Jarvis Stone School in Salem Township; (2) an update on the county’s Head Start program, which will be falling under control of the Washtenaw Intermediate School District; and (3) resolutions of opposition – one against gun violence and one against the long-range transportation plan of the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG). The SEMCOG plan calls for expansion of I-94 in Detroit and I-75 in Oakland County. Some commissioners think that funding should be used to repair existing roads and bridges instead.

Court Funding

For several weeks during budget deliberations, Alicia Ping (R-District 3) has expressed concerns over the county’s approach to funding the court system.

County commissioners Alicia Ping of Saline (R-District 3) and Dan Smith of Whitmore Lake (R-District 2) at the board’s June 5 meeting.

Unlike other units of county government, which prepare line-item budgets authorized by the county board, the courts operate under a memorandum of understanding with the board of commissioners. The board unanimously approved that MOU on Jan. 19, 2011, replacing one that had been in place since 1990. [.pdf of memorandum of understanding] Ping had been absent at that Jan. 19 meeting.

The agreement states that the county will provide “lump sum” funding to the courts, allocated to: (1) the trial court – an entity that includes the 22nd Circuit Court, court clerk services, juvenile court, Friend of the Court, and probate court; (2) 14A District Court; and (3) a portion of the county’s child care fund. The county does not have line-item budgeting authority, but the courts agreed to submit a bi-annual line-item budget, and to provide quarterly financial projections.

The MOU also covered the community corrections division. However, subsequently oversight of that operation has shifted from the trial court to the sheriff’s office, and is not subject to the lump sum agreement.

The 2011 MOU was signed by Conan Smith, who chaired the board at that time; Donald Shelton, chief judge of the trial court; and Kirk Tabbey, the 14A District Court’s chief judge.

From the general fund, the lump-sum payment to the courts in 2013 totals $19,155,029 – with $13,353,110 for the trial court and $5,801,919 for district court. In addition, state funding for certain trial court operations – the Friend of the Court and child care fund – totals $4,977,047. [.pdf of 2013 budget pages with trial court-related amounts highlighted]

The June 5 proposal by Ping, the board’s vice chair, came in the context of the administration’s goal of identifying $6.99 million in structural reductions for the overall 2014 general fund budget. For several weeks, Ping has raised concerns that the courts are treated differently than other county units in the budgeting process. At the board’s May 15, 2013 meeting, for example, she asked to see the history of funding for the courts, saying she was curious about whether the courts had cut in the same way that other county units had cut. “I’d like to know that we’re all in the game together,” she said at the time. [.pdf of historical funding for public safety & justice operations]

No court officials attended the June 5 meeting. Ping’s proposal had not been on the published agenda.

The process for ending the lump-sum agreement is written into the MOU. The term “the Court” is used to refer to all courts covered in the MOU:

13. Modification and Duration – This Agreement may be modified by mutual consent of the parties. This Agreement shall continue indefinitely and may be terminated only upon one year’s written notification by a party to all other parties. The County agrees to include the Court in the modification process relative to any County policies covered by this Agreement.

However, during the board’s June 5 ways & means committee meeting – when Ping brought forward her proposal – the discussion was based on a faulty assumption that the MOU called for a six-month notification process. That assumption influenced the debate, with some commissioners arguing that it was urgent to end the agreement before voting on the next budget. The administration is preparing a new four-year budget from 2014-2017, which will require board approval before Dec. 31, 2013.

The board’s discussion also focused most frequently on the trial court – the county’s largest court – although the MOU covers the 14A District Court and other court-related operations as well.

Court Funding: Ways & Means Committee – Trial Court Software

A court-related item was first mentioned near the beginning of the June 5 ways & means committee meeting, which immediately precedes the board meeting. Board chair Yousef Rabhi reported on the trial court’s efforts to secure new software. Court officials had approached him with a proposed vendor, Rabhi reported, but he had insisted that the court follow the county’s standard procurement process, including issuing an RFP (request for proposals). “This project, in my mind, should not be above [the RFP process],” Rabhi said. “I got pushback from folks saying that we wouldn’t get any other bidders, and that we’d just make a fool of ourselves and that we shouldn’t do the RFP process. But we stuck with it.”

The result of the RFP, Rabhi said, is that the same proposed vendor and the same service came in at a savings of $500,000. [.pdf of bid responses, which are still under evaluation] “I think that it’s a testament to the procurement process that we have,” he said, and that a good process leads to good outcomes.

Rabhi said he wasn’t arguing that the county should go ahead and approve the funding for the trial court’s new system – as that’s a topic that deserves more discussion. The item would be brought to the board at its August meeting, he said.

Court Funding: Ways & Means Committee – Ping’s Proposal

After other items at the ways & means meeting had been dispatched, Alicia Ping announced her intent to make a motion to give notice to the courts to terminate the lump-sum agreement with the county. No other elected official’s office is given a lump sum for its budget, and Ping felt it’s only proper that the board is able to look at everything as a whole – “and not just have a lump of money go to the court and not have any idea where it goes.” It’s especially important, she noted, as the county grapples to cut nearly $7 million from the 2014 budget.

The purpose isn’t necessarily to reduce the courts’ budget, she said. Rather, the board should know where the money is going, since commissioners are ultimately responsible for the entire county budget – including court operations.

Ronnie Peterson wondered if the relationship with the courts has deteriorated to the point that the board or administration isn’t communicating about what’s expected from the courts. Has any attempt been made to enhance that relationship, especially regarding the budget? He was very interested in engaging the chief judge [of the trial court, Donald Shelton], other judges and court administrators on this issue. Peterson said he respected Ping, but he hadn’t been privileged to know that this resolution would be made that night, or why it was being made.

Ping replied that she wasn’t aware of any deterioration in the relationship between the courts and the board. She said she was only proposing the notice of intent to terminate the agreement, saying that the agreement required a six-month notice before it could be ended. [This later proved to be faulty information; the agreement requires a 12-month notification.]

Lloyd Powell, Washtenaw County public defender.

Ping clarified that she didn’t intend to cut $7 million from the court budget. That $7 million figure is the amount of cuts that the county needs to make in its entire general fund budget. The notice, according to the county’s contract with the courts, lets court officials know that the county would like a line-item budget instead of a lump-sum approach. It’s not necessarily to cut the courts’ budget, she reiterated, but only to see where the money is going. “As a body, we are responsible for that money,” she said. Ping noted that the county’s public defender, Lloyd Powell, has reported that his office is doing triple the work now compared to previous years, with a lower budget.

If the board passes this resolution, Peterson replied, “there will be a big question in the minds of those seated in the House of Justice over what happened to their relationship with the board of commissioners.” If the board has an issue with the lump-sum approach, has anyone approached the courts to talk about it? he wondered.

County administrator Verna McDaniel reported that the administration has met with court officials about the upcoming budget, as part of the existing budget development process. Everything is on course based on the lump-sum approach, she said.

In that case, Peterson said, it seemed like this resolution was just to send a message to the courts about the board’s interest in discussing this issue – and that the court officials shouldn’t take offense.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. observed that regardless of the vote’s outcome, “tomorrow morning everybody in town will know about it.” His concern is that there hasn’t been discussion about this, and he wanted to schedule a working session on it. His understanding is that the courts are on budget. The board might be starting a fire that they couldn’t put out, he warned, and if the courts aren’t happy, they can hire an attorney that the county will have to pay for. He didn’t necessarily disagree with Ping, but he wouldn’t support her motion until the board has discussed the issue in more detail.

Conan Smith called Ping’s proposal “good government,” and he supported it. There are three branches of government, he noted. At the county level, the board of commissioners is the legislative branch. The board’s only check on those other branches of government – the judiciary, and the administrative branch of elected officials, like the water resources commissioner and sheriff – is “the power of the purse,” he said, and the ability to establish a budget. “When we approve a lump-sum budget, we abrogate that responsibility and we surrender that duty to other people. I don’t think that comports with our process of checks and balances.”

C. Smith pointed out that he had proposed pulling out of the lump-sum agreement in the past, when he was chair of the ways & means committee and again when he served as board chair. [Details of that history are included in The Chronicle's Jan. 19, 2011 meeting report.] He said he had struggled with the courts over it, in terms of getting them to understand how their budget impacts the systemic operations of the entire county. It’s appropriate for the board to have line-item authority over all of the county’s units, including the judiciary, he said.

In addition, it’s not a practice that’s out of line with the custom throughout the court system, C. Smith noted. The Michigan legislature approves line-item budgets for the state courts, and appropriates funding for specific programs, like the drug court. The legislature sets its priorities, via those budgets, he said, “and it’s the same thing for us.” If county commissioners believe that a drug court should be a priority, then they should articulate that in the courts’ budget and have the confidence that taxpayer dollars are being spent on that. “For me, it is a good governance question more than anything else.”

Dan Smith responded to the issue of timing, stating that the current agreement requires a six-month notice of intent to terminate. Just because commissioners give notice doesn’t mean they will end up terminating the lump-sum approach, he said. But if they don’t give notice, they have no options. By acting on it that night, they’ll keep their options open.

D. Smith also noted that this funding system has been put in place by the state legislature. The county board is responsible to allocate funding for county services, including the courts. He agreed with C. Smith that a lump-sum agreement abrogates that responsibility. He wasn’t saying that this was the best system. He thought the courts and many boards of commissioners across Michigan would like to handle it differently. A lot of people would be happy if the state legislature would take over funding of the courts, “and this body would not be in the middle of running the courts,” he said. However, “that is not where things are today.”

D. Smith reported that House Bill 4704 of 2013 had recently passed the state House of Representatives. It changes some of the county budget procedures, he noted. He read aloud a relevant portion of the bill, which states that the county budget “is presumed to fund those activities of a county mandated by law at a serviceable level.” The bill addresses ways to appeal those funding decisions, including mediation, and calls for any formal appeal to be handled by the state court of appeals, not the county circuit court. It appears to shift the balance, he said, adding that he isn’t intending to fire a shot across the bow of the courts and judges. But the board needs to keep its options open as they’re looking at a $7 million shortfall, he added, and there’s a huge pot of money that’s given to the courts “with essentially no oversight.”

County board chair Yousef Rabhi of Ann Arbor (D-District 8). In the background is county administrator Verna McDaniel.

Yousef Rabhi spoke next, saying he wasn’t expecting this proposal to come forward that night. It had been discussed in the past, he noted, and he agreed that oversight was important. The lump-sum agreement might not be the best way to accomplish that. But he also believes in process, Rabhi said, and as board chair he felt his duty is to lead the county as a whole. “This action could have significant ramifications on our relationship with the courts, so I want to make sure that we’re understanding the full context of the action that we’re taking today.”

He asked McDaniel to talk about the history of the county’s relationship with the courts, particularly in terms of oversight and consistency. How are the courts treated, compared to other county units? What oversight does the board have?

When McDaniel indicated some uncertainty in responding, Rabhi said that in the absence of that information, he felt the board shouldn’t act on the proposal. He agreed in concept that the board needs more oversight of the courts, but commissioners need more information. They need a process in order to vet the idea and properly discuss it with court officials. The board needs to lead the county in a way that doesn’t alienate its partners, he said. Rabhi hoped commissioners would vote to postpone it so that they could discuss it at a working session. He said he was open to changing his mind, but that was his initial response.

Felicia Brabec noted that the board does have a process for addressing issues like this, and it begins at a working session. Resolutions are then brought forward for an initial vote at a ways & means committee meeting, she said, and then for a final vote at the regular board meeting. That process seems solid to her. She felt like she was being asked to make a decision without that process, having heard about it just that evening.

Pointing out that Rabhi had indicated he might change his mind, Conan Smith raised the issue of a four-year budget, which the board has authorized the administration to develop. Doing a lump sum for four years “makes me highly uncomfortable,” C. Smith said. He’s supportive of the four-year budget process because the board has strong control over the budget’s line items. But that’s not the case with the courts.

C. Smith also reiterated the point that the board wouldn’t be making a decision about the lump-sum budget itself. Commissioners are just making sure they have that option later in the year. This is simply starting the process. “If we don’t do it, then we’re hamstrung.”

Peterson moved to postpone initial action on the item until the board’s July 10 ways & means committee meeting.

Outcome on motion to postpone initial action: The motion failed on a 4-5 vote, with support only from Ronnie Peterson, Yousef Rabhi, Rolland Sizemore Jr. and Felicia Brabec.

Discussion continued.

Dan Smith argued that if commissioners wait until July to notify the courts, they’ll miss their window on this option and won’t have the option to eliminate the lump sum by the end of the year, when the budget must be adopted.

Ping compared her proposal to the board’s proposal to issue a notice of intent to bond. That notice of intent doesn’t mean the board will decide to issue bonds – it just provides that option, she said. The same is true with her proposal to notify the courts. Ping pointed out that she asked for a 10-year funding history of the courts about six weeks ago, and she raised the issue again at the board’s budget retreat in May. “Maybe nobody took it seriously up until I made this resolution,” she said, “but I have been talking about this for six weeks.”

She also was uncomfortable with a four-year lump-sum budget for the courts, given that there’s uncertainty about whether some of the courts will remain open, she noted. “If that budget’s in place, the money goes – whether they need it or not,” she said.

Sizemore noted that several commissioners had referred to a four-year budget, as though the board has decided to adopt a four-year budget. Perhaps they should revert to a two-year budget cycle, he said, which could give the board more control. [At its May 1, 2013 meeting, the board authorized McDaniel to develop a four-year budget process. However, the board is only required by state law to adopt the budget one year at a time. For several years, the county has worked on a two-year budget planning cycle.]

Washtenaw County commissioner Ronnie Peterson of Ypsilanti (D-District 6).

Peterson said he fully understood Ping’s intent. But for him, it’s a matter of respect for the courts. If at any time commissioners felt that they needed to discuss the lump-sum budget with the chief judge and court administrator, “we should have done that.” As he has in the past, Peterson expressed concerns about adopting a four-year budget. He felt that the courts were very accountable and responsive. The board can ask the courts for a line-item report of its expenditures, he noted – so there are already checks and balances in place.

The courts had wanted flexibility in spending their budget, and that request had been mediated years ago, resulting in a lump-sum agreement, Peterson said. And if commissioners had wanted to send a notice to the courts to terminate that agreement, they should have acted in January, he argued. Peterson felt the board itself hadn’t been very accountable regarding the $345 million bond proposal. “So as we blast others, let’s prepare to take a few pellets ourselves.”

Conan Smith agreed that the board has the right to ask the courts for detailed budget information. But in his experience, when he was chair of the ways & means committee and was dealing with a proposed $30 million deficit a few years ago, he said, the courts weren’t very forthcoming with information, including detailed projections. “It was extraordinarily frustrating,” he said.

Also, C. Smith added, “it shouldn’t be about asking – it should be about telling.” It’s the duty of the legislative body to determine how the county’s budget is allocated. He felt the board has an obligation to set the line items, telling the courts – by way of funding – what the board’s priorities are. That’s different from asking the court to inform the board about how a lump-sum budget is being spent, he noted.

Rabhi asked McDaniel to explain the purpose of a lump-sum agreement. She talked generally about the elements in the agreement, not the motivation behind it. She described it as “not a very detailed document” that spells out the powers of the county and the courts. Rabhi asked what actions the courts had taken to demand this kind of agreement. McDaniel said she didn’t think the courts demanded it, but that both the county administration and the court officials felt it was a good document to have a clearer understanding about the role of each entity. [In general, members of the judiciary view their operation as a separate unit of government, and believe that their independence should be reflected in the budget process. This is a tension that's not unique to Washtenaw County.]

Rabhi noted that the courts feel very strongly about the lump-sum agreement, so he was trying to understand their perspective. In addition to the oversight issue, he said, as board chair he has an interest in having “a peaceful, well-functioning organization – so I don’t want to make anybody angry in this process.” He acknowledged that people will likely be mad now that the discussion is already taking place.

He observed that Ping and other supporters of her proposal view it as the start of a process. If it passed, he hoped that commissioners would engage the board in that process and not go into it with the preconceived notion that the lump-sum agreement will be eliminated.

Andy LaBarre called the question, a procedural move meant to force a vote.

Outcome on calling the question: On a voice vote, the board unanimously agreed to call the question.

Outcome on initial vote to send a notice of termination: The item passed on a 5-4 vote, with support from Andy LaBarre, Kent Martinez-Kratz, Alicia Ping, Conan Smith and Dan Smith. Voting in dissent were Felicia Brabec, Ronnie Peterson, Yousef Rabhi and Rolland Sizemore Jr.

Dan Smith then moved to forward the item to the board’s regular meeting that same night.

Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, explained that in a procedural motion like this, only five votes are needed to move the item to the board meeting. However, the vote at the board meeting would then need six votes in order to pass – a two-thirds majority.

Responding to a query from Rabhi, Hedger said if the board doesn’t take a final vote that night, the item would be moved to the board’s July 10 agenda. A six-month notice approved on July 10 would push the earliest termination date into January 2014. Hedger noted that the board can act at any time, saying a decision doesn’t need to be tied to the budget process. However, it would mean that negotiations with the courts would begin almost immediately after their 2014 budget had been approved.

In that case, Rabhi said, he’d support moving it to the board meeting that night for a final vote.

From left: Corporation counsel Curtis Hedger and commissioner Rolland Sizemore Jr. of Ypsilanti Township (D-District 5).

Peterson wanted to assure commissioners that the courts wouldn’t “roll over” on this issue. He felt the courts would ask for mediation. “This board may speak,” he said, “but you will not have the last word.”

Peterson argued that because the county pays all the bills, anyone can find out how the courts spend their lump-sum budget. Even with a line-item budget, he said, the only way to know if the courts – or any department – spent the money in the way it was allocated is to contact the finance department. The main issue is whether the budget for the courts is an appropriate amount – whether it’s given as a lump sum, or as a line-item budget. But if commissioners think they’ll be able to “rope in” the courts with a line-item budget, “you’re dreaming,” Peterson said. He couldn’t believe they’d wasted so much time discussing it, when they should have simply dispatched the county administrator to talk with court officials. “It’s not your job to be watchdogs of the court system …” he said.

Kent Martinez-Kratz noted that his constituents are asking about the $345 million bond proposal, and residents want every rock turned over regarding the budget. It might be grandiose to think that the county board can influence the court system, he said. But he didn’t think that creating an open and transparent budget for the courts is asking too much. As he asks his constituents to consider this bond proposal, he’s also asking the courts to produce a transparent budget. He thought his constituents would support that, too.

Brabec said she was struggling, because the board doesn’t know what the implications are. She agreed with the points on oversight and transparency. But they don’t know what unintended consequences this action might cause, because it’s so rushed.

Rabhi called the question.

Outcome on calling the question: It was approved on a unanimous voice vote.

Outcome on vote to move the item forward to the board meeting that same evening: The motion was approved on a 6-3 vote, over dissent from Felicia Brabec, Ronnie Peterson and Rolland Sizemore Jr.

Court Funding: Regular Board Meeting

During the board meeting that immediately followed the ways & means committee meeting, Rolland Sizemore Jr. asked about the notification timeline. Curtis Hedger reported that during a break between the two meetings, he’d looked at the memorandum of understanding. It actually states that a 12-month period of notification is required, not six months. So if the board approves giving notice that night, the agreement couldn’t be terminated until June of 2014. “So it is a bit of a difference than what we discussed at ways & means,” Hedger said.

Sizemore observed that the board spent an hour discussing something that doesn’t matter now, in terms of the budgeting process. “I’m not going to comment on that,” Hedger replied.

Ronnie Peterson asked that the lump-sum item be separated out from the other agenda votes, so that the board could discuss it further. He criticized the fact that the board acted on a resolution when they didn’t know all the facts. He wanted to make sure people knew he hadn’t been part of that, saying he had a different style of communication. He hoped to reach out to court officials in a different way, and to make sure they knew that the $7 million in cuts to the county budget “does not rest with the court.”

Washtenaw County commissioner Conan Smith of Ann Arbor (D-District 9).

Conan Smith noted that the six month difference is significant in terms of timing, but it’s not significant in terms of the philosophical underpinning of whether to have a lump-sum agreement. Technically, the board could adopt a lump-sum budget for the first six months of 2014, then move into a line-item approach for the second six months. “It’s completely doable,” he said. The board gives up far too much authority over line-item expenditures in exchange for “peace in the valley,” he said. “I want to see something different.”

Alicia Ping said she thought of it as being six months early for the 2015 budget, rather than six months late for 2014. She supported C. Smith’s idea of doing a lump sum for the first six months of 2014, followed by a line-item budget.

Ping also pointed out that she in no way insinuated that she wanted to balance the county’s budget cuts on the back of the courts. “I never said that,” she noted, adding that in fact she had suggested the courts’ budget might not change at all, in terms of the amount. The request for a line-item approach isn’t out of line at all, she said. “I answer to the people in my district, the taxpayers. I don’t answer to the courts.”

Peterson noted that nothing mandates the courts to negotiate with the county, as long as there’s a signed agreement [the memorandum of understanding]. The only reason he could imagine that this was being brought up now is to save face, given that the 2014 budget “is $7 million out of whack.” The only thing that the county can do at this point is to ask the courts to cooperate and help address the deficit, he said.

But if the intent is for the board to manage the courts’ budget, that’s a very different discussion, Peterson said. “Those are two separate issues.” When the board can’t even narrow down its budget, he didn’t know how commissioners could presume to control the court system’s budget. The board hasn’t balanced its budget in a long time without using reserves or employee furlough days and other concessions, he said. What’s more, they’re now in a position to need to borrow $345 million to cover their retiree obligations, he noted. Peterson wasn’t interested in managing the judicial system’s budget. “We have our hands full.”

As chair of the board’s working session, Andy LaBarre said he hoped to diffuse some of the tension by rearranging the working session schedule to bump up this topic. Regarding the charge that the board had wasted an hour on this discussion, he quipped, “folks would say that’s not the first time, and sadly they would not be wrong.”

LaBarre observed that everyone is trying to address how to do things differently, given that they face an entirely new set of challenges. They need to understand where every dollar is going so that when they pass the budget, they can make the case to citizens that they’ve had a full discussion and it’s been well considered.

LaBarre also noted that the working session topics have been good, but attendance at those sessions “is not always as good as the volume of ideas that are brought forward for them.” He’s happy to move the topic up in the queue of working session schedules. “All I’d ask is that we come and have a full discussion with a full caucus.”

Yousef Rabhi described himself as conflicted on this issue. Accountability and transparency are very important, so he appreciated that Ping introduced this topic. But from a process and courtesy standpoint, the board is a partner with the court system, he said. The courts have helped balance the county’s budget, and the board needs to be respectful of that. He didn’t want to create a confrontational atmosphere, adding “I know some of that has already been done.”

County commissioner Andy LaBarre of Ann Arbor (D-District 7).

In light of the longer one-year notice requirement, Rabhi said he’d like to postpone the item until the board’s July 10 meeting. Commissioners need to engage in a dialogue with court officials, he said. “Otherwise, it could lead down a very ugly path and one that I don’t want to go down. It’s going to be an interesting summer, one way or another.”

With that, Rabhi moved to postpone the item until July 10.

Dan Smith opposed postponement. He posited that this is exactly how the process is supposed to work. The board is a public body, he noted, and a motion was brought forward at a public meeting for a vote. This is the beginning of a 12- or 13-month conversation. At the end, the board might decide to continue with a lump-sum approach. But they can’t have that discussion unless they give notice to the courts. “I see no value in waiting another month to have a 13-month discussion versus a 12-month discussion,” he said.

Rabhi stressed that he appreciated that Ping had started the discussion. He noted that the board rules call for introducing an item at the ways & means meeting, then waiting until the board meeting two weeks later for a final vote. The board rules allow for a process to handle it in one night, but it’s more common to do it on different nights. That’s why he’s comfortable postponing the item until July, Rabhi said.

D. Smith noted that during the summer months, the board meets only once a month. It’s typical during the summer for the board to handle all agenda items by taking both an initial and final vote on the same evening.

Outcome on postponing until July 10: The board voted 6-3 to postpone, with dissent from Alicia Ping, Kent Martinez-Kratz and Dan Smith.

Bond Proposal

Aside from the unanticipated court budget discussion, the major item on the June 5 agenda concerned the proposed bond issue to cover the county’s retiree obligations. The meeting included the first of two public hearings on the potential $345 million bond proposal. A second hearing is scheduled for July 10, when the board will likely take action on the proposal.

The proposed bond issue of up to $345 million, the largest in the county’s history, is intended to cover unfunded pension and retiree healthcare obligations from the Washtenaw County Employees’ Retirement System (WCERS) and Voluntary Employees Beneficiary Association (VEBA) – the defined benefit pension and retiree healthcare plans. Those plans will be closed to employees hired after Jan. 1, 2014.

The proposal had first been mentioned publicly in mid-April, though the administration has been working on it since November of 2012, and commissioners had discussed it in closed session earlier this year as part of the county’s negotiations for new labor contracts. For background, see Chronicle coverage: “County Board Debates $345M Bond Proposal” and “County Budget, Bonding Decisions Loom.”

The original plan called for taking an initial vote on May 15 authorizing the publication of a “notice of intent” for the bond issue, with final approval on June 5. Responding to concerns about the speed at which the process was moving – without the opportunity for sufficient public input – board chair Yousef Rabhi pushed back the timetable. Now, it’s expected that a resolution to issue the notice of intent will come before the board on July 10 for initial – and possibly final – approval. This is a standard step in the bonding process, letting residents know that they have 45 days during which they can circulate petitions to require a vote of the people before any bonds are issued.

The board scheduled a working session on June 6 focused on the bond proposal. Participating in the session were: Jens Stephan, accounting professor at Eastern Michigan University; John Axe, the county’s bond counsel; and Larry Langer of Buck Consultants LLC.

In addition, other forums for public input are scheduled:

• Saturday, June 15: 4-6 p.m. “Bonding over Coffee” with Yousef Rabhi at Espresso Royale, 214 S. Main St., Ann Arbor.
• Wednesday, June 26: 4-6 p.m. “Bonding over Coffee” with Yousef Rabhi at Caribou Coffee, 1423 E. Stadium Blvd. (corner of Packard and Stadium).
• Thursday, June 27: 4:30 p.m., public forum with county administrator Verna McDaniel at the Learning Resource Center, Room A, 4135 Washtenaw Ave., Ann Arbor.

Bond Proposal: Public Hearing & Public Commentary

Four people spoke at the June 5 public hearing.

Doug Smith spoke in strong opposition to the bonding proposal – both during the public hearing, and during the general public commentary. In addition to paying $239 million in interest, the move would downgrade the county’s bond rating, he argued, which means that every dollar that’s borrowed in the next 25 years will cost more in interest. It’s a very expensive way to kick the can down the road. He noted that the alternative put forward is to cut jobs. He suggested that cutting the overtime of the sheriff’s secretary would equate to more than a full-time employee. The county should find cuts in its budget long before it borrows money, Smith said.

From left: Former county commissioner Wes Prater and current commissioner Kent Martinez-Kratz of Chelsea (D-District 1).

Smith wondered how borrowing money, which the county would have to pay interest on, is somehow going to solve the county’s problems. He said he didn’t quite understand what the county was doing. There’s no revenue associated with the bonding, he noted – it’s not like building something that will generate money to help pay off the bond. At minimum, he suggested, the county should take a variety of approaches, including budget cuts and tax increase. There needs to be a combination to avoid putting the county $600 million worth in debt, he concluded.

Thomas Partridge said it was unjust, unfair and anti-democratic that the county had presented only one plan. He pointed out that the county has additional time to look at this issue, and that there are other options – including the option of putting a millage on the ballot to pay for these retiree obligations. Partridge called that a good alternative. Another option is to tighten the county’s budget even further, and downsize the county services, but that’s too much in line with Mitt Romney, he said.

Kathy Fojtik Stroud recommended that the board investigate the possibility of a new millage. She said the gossip in her neighborhood was that the board would put a millage proposal on the ballot to pay for these retiree obligations. It would give the citizens an opportunity to vote on it.

Wes Prater started by thanking the board and staff for slowing down the process, and for bringing in experts to discuss the issue. It was a wise thing to do, he said. He asked about the timing of the new actuarial reports – when would those be completed? If they don’t have those reports, how can they make an informed decision? He argued that the legislation that enabled this type of bond sale hadn’t been created with sufficient research. Other than this particular exception to bond for retiree obligations, Michigan’s municipal finance act only allows for bonding to fund capital improvements without a vote of the people, he said. More research is needed, he concluded.

Bond Proposal: Communications & Discussion

During the county administrator’s report, Verna McDaniel said she’d been communicating about the bond proposal with township officials, county employees and the public.

Felicia Brabec, chair of the board’s ways & means committee, reviewed activity related to developing a four-year budget for the county, from 2014-2017, including outreach efforts for the bond proposal. She laid out the timeline for items coming before the board that relate to the bond proposal. Action on July 10 will include:

• Vote on a “notice of intent” to issue the bonds. This is a standard initial step in the bonding process, letting residents know that they have 45 days during which they can circulate petitions to require a vote of the people before any bonds are issued.
• Vote the bond resolution and “continuing disclosure” resolution. The board will be asked to set a maximum amount for the bond. The continuing disclosure resolution is standard for all bond issues over $1 million, and indicates that the county will provide updated financial information annually during the term of the bond.
• Vote to create an intermediate trust. The trust will receive the bond proceeds, and trustees will be appointed to oversee the money managers that will be hired to handle the investments.

Brabec said that if these items receive initial approval on July 10, they’ll be forwarded for a final vote at a special board meeting set for July 24. [It's also possible for the board to decide to take a final vote on the items that same night.]

Felicia Brabec of Pittsfield Township (D-District 4) is chair of the county board’s ways & means committee.

Board chair Yousef Rabhi highlighted his “Bonding over Coffee” meetings in Ann Arbor. Rolland Sizemore Jr. wanted someone to hold a similar session on the east side of the county. Rabhi noted that he had scheduled his coffee hours to make it convenient for constituents in his Ann Arbor district – and that’s why the sessions were located in Ann Arbor, not elsewhere in the county. Rabhi wondered if McDaniel’s June 27 public meeting at the Learning Resource Center, just east of Carpenter Road, was far enough east to serve resident on that side of the county. Sizemore indicated that the LRC meeting would suffice.

Alicia Ping also put in a request to hold a public forum on the county’s west side, saying that she and Kent Martinez-Kratz – who represent districts in southwest and west Washtenaw, respectively – would appreciate it. McDaniel agreed to set something up.

Later in the meeting, Sizemore complained that he has asked the administration for alternatives to the $345 million bond proposal, but none have been presented. He suggested that there are other budget items that could be cut, such as overtime or providing less expensive cars to employees.

Sizemore also wanted the administration to provide a summary that would “dummy down” the proposal to make it easier for commissioners and the public to understand.

Ronnie Peterson wondered if the county would be borrowing more than the amount of its pension and retiree health care obligations. Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, replied that it isn’t legally possible to bond for more than the amount of those obligations. However, the amount won’t be known until the actuarial reports are completed in late June. Hedger noted that the bond counsel and financial consultant had been very conservative when they estimated that the county would need up to $345 million. The administration is hoping that the actual amount will be lower than that.

Peterson also asked where the money would come from to make the bond payments. County administrator Verna McDaniel answered in a general way, saying the funds would come from monies that the county already collects, as well as from the bond proceeds. Each department will make a contribution to those obligations, she said. Those amounts will be reflected in the budget, starting in 2014. Peterson said he wanted to make sure the county would be able to meet its obligations, without any massive reduction in services or layoffs. He wanted everyone to understand clearly where those bond payments are coming from.

Conan Smith asked for the amount of the county’s current bond payment for those retiree obligations. McDaniel clarified that the county doesn’t currently have a bond for that, but it does make annual contributions to cover those obligations. The most recent payment was $20 million, she said. Without the bonding, the 2014 payment will be higher, she noted.

C. Smith pointed out that the bond is structured so that annual payments over the 25 years will range from between $12 million and $26 million. But the county’s actuarial contributions might be as high as $30 million a year during that time, he said – that’s what the actuarial study will project. If the county bonds, its payment will show up on the books as a line item for bond payments. If the county doesn’t bond, it will show up as an unfunded liability, he said.

Peterson noted that some of the current payments for retiree obligations are made from federal and state grants that support certain county programs. But over the course of the 25-year bond, there will be possibly 5 or 6 new U.S. presidents, he said, and 4 or 5 new governors. These changing administrations could have an effect, because the county relies so much on federal and state dollars, Peterson said. Only about half of the county’s entire budget is tied to the general fund, he noted. The rest is from federal and state funding, and in that regard the county is at the mercy of other governments. Whenever that funding is reduced, it impacts the county’s ability to make retiree contributions.

Peterson said he was concerned about the county’s ability in the future to make bond payments out of the general fund, if federal and state funding is cut. That could result in massive layoffs, he noted, because the county will be obligated to pay the bond. “This bond will supersede anything else we do,” he said. Referring to the county’s possible shift to a four-year budget cycle, Peterson said he didn’t know how that could work, given the uncertainty of federal and state funding. He said he’s not “throwing bricks” at the administrator – it’s the board’s responsibility.

Commissioners Dan Smith of Whitmore Lake (R-District 2) and Andy LaBarre of Ann Arbor (D-District 7).

Conan Smith thanked Peterson for bringing up this point. He noted that part of the revenue stream for paying off the bond would come from current employees who are in the defined benefit plan, and who are contributing to that plan. So the portion of those employees who are in non-general fund programs – supported by state and federal funding – are less under the county’s control. If that funding is cut, the county would likely need to eliminate those jobs, he said, which in turn will eliminate the contributions that those employees make toward retirement obligations. It’s an element of risk that’s outside the county’s “zone of control,” he said. But that risk declines over time, and is predictable, he added. The county knows the number of employees who are in the plan, and how much they contribute.

C. Smith asked McDaniel if she could provide information about the scope of the risk that Peterson had identified, in case the board decides to develop a contingency plan for the loss of state and federal funding. It’s not an actuarial question, he noted. It’s a matter of identifying the number of employees in non-general fund programs, and how much they would contribute to the bond payment strategy. If all of those employees were to disappear, what would that do to the revenue stream for repaying the bond? he asked.

McDaniel replied that if those jobs are eliminated, some of the retiree obligations will be eliminated too – because not all employees would be vested. C. Smith still wanted to get a sense of what the range of risk might be.

Dan Smith noted that if the county issues bonds and jobs are subsequently eliminated because of a cut in federal or state funding, the obligations for those employees don’t go away – because the county would be repaying the bonds, not the retiree obligations. The only opportunity to discharge that obligation is when the bonds are called. “The fact that we have issued bonds makes all these liabilities – these soft liabilities – it turns them into a real hard honest-to-goodness liabilities that we must pay.” Those bond payments must be made on schedule, he said, no matter what.

Outcome: This was not a voting item. The board is expected to take action on the bond proposal – and to hold another public hearing – at its July 10 meeting.

Facilities Plan

A strategic space plan was on the June 5 agenda for initial approval, laying out a range of infrastructure projects for Washtenaw County government facilities totaling about $5 million. The proposals include redeveloping the Platt Road site where the old juvenile center was located.

Projects include:

• Demolish the former juvenile center and explore redeveloping the site at 2260 and 2270 Platt Road in Ann Arbor for affordable housing, alternative energy solutions, and county offices.
• At 200 N. Main in Ann Arbor, consolidate the land records from the building’s lower level to the 1st floor, and remodel the lower level to accommodate administrative offices.
• At 220 N. Main in Ann Arbor, repurpose space in the garden level, including redesigning conference room space.
• At 110 N. Fourth in Ann Arbor (known as the Annex), relocate the Office of Community and Economic Development, Office of Infrastructure Management, and the Public Defender’s office to other leased and county-owned space. For example, the Public Defender’s office will be relocated to the City Center building at the southwest corner of Fifth & Huron.
• At the county’s service center near Washtenaw and Hogback, redesign the Learning Resource Center (LRC) as a full conference center, providing county-owned space for large and small meetings. Also, make parking improvements, including adding 110 new spaces, rebuilding the lot between the LRC and the courthouse, and resurfacing the entry drive off of Hogback.
• At a location to be determined, develop a specialty vehicle storage facility for the sheriff’s office and other departments.

According to Greg Dill, the county’s infrastructure management director, no general fund dollars will be used for the projects, which are estimated to cost about $5 million.

Greg Dill, Washtenaw County’s infrastructure management director.

Funding will come from several sources: (1) $1 million from the 1/8th mill fund balance; (2) $650,000 from the facilities operations & maintenance fund balance; (3) $650,000 from the Office of Community & Economic Development reserves; (4) $500,000 from the tech plan fund balance; and (5) $2.2 million from the county’s capital reserves. Dill had briefed commissioners on the plan at a March 20, 2013 working session.

In addition to the projects listed above, other changes will be made to accommodate the county’s Community Support and Treatment Services (CSTS) unit, which provides contract services to the Washtenaw Community Health Organization (WCHO). The WCHO will pay for that facilities work, including moving the entire Adult MI program staff to the Annex at 110 N. Fourth; repurposing vacated space at 2140 Ellsworth for Youth and Family Services; and relocating all “service delivery” units to the 1st floor of the Towner II building at 555 Towner Street in Ypsilanti.

Facilities Plan: Board Discussion

Felicia Brabec asked about the amount of funding provided by OCED, and confirmed with Greg Dill that it was an estimate for moving costs. If the move doesn’t cost that much, she asked, what happens with the extra funds?

Dill replied that the entire plan is based on initial estimates. The staff will make adjustments as the projects move forward, and if the cost for OCED is less than estimated, the money will return to the OCED reserves.

Most of the remaining board discussion focused on the Platt Road property. Conan Smith asked Dill to talk about the process of developing a plan for that site.

The first phase is to demolish the buildings on the property, Dill explained. The county had issued an RFP (request for proposals) and is now in the process of selecting a firm for that work. The second phase would be developing a plan for the site. Dill said he’s had several conversations with board chair Yousef Rabhi about that, including the likelihood of a steering committee to guide the process. Dill expected that he’d return to the board later this year with an updated proposal for that site.

In response to a query from Ronnie Peterson, Dill described the plan for Platt Road as still very early in the process. The staff first wanted to get the space plan approved and the funding settled, he said. Then there would be discussion about who should serve on the Platt Road steering committee and what their charge should be. Dill planned to work with Rabhi on that, but it would be brought back to the board for action.

Rabhi added that Andy LaBarre would be involved as well, since the site is in District 7, which is represented by LaBarre. Rabhi noted that LaBarre is interested in engaging neighbors and others in that area about the site’s future.

Peterson thanked Rabhi for the information, adding that “I wish I was invited to more things that happen in my district.” A lot of county activity happens in his district and in Rolland Sizemore Jr.’s district, Peterson said, “and I sometimes read it in the newspaper.” [Sizemore and Peterson represent districts 5 and 6, respectively, primarily covering Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township.]

Peterson said it seemed the Platt Road property might be put up for sale, because the space plan indicated affordable housing on the site. But “we’re not in the housing business,” he said. Peterson felt that the resolution before the board that night was indicating an intent to sell. Dill replied that a decision to sell hasn’t been determined. The only action that the board would be taking that night was to demolish the two structures on the site.

Before the July 10 final vote, Peterson wanted to know exactly where the funding for the overall plan would be coming from, and how much would remain in the fund balances and reserves.

Sizemore wanted more detail about the specific projects, like how much the demolition of the Platt Road buildings would cost. Dill offered to prepare a supplemental document with that information. Sizemore complimented Dill and his staff for their work on the Platt Road property, saying that he enjoyed seeing community gardens there.

In general, Sizemore expressed his view that the county doesn’t need new buildings, so he wouldn’t support any plan that included building new offices. He noted that there are vacant school buildings that might be available for use in certain parts of the county.

Sizemore also urged Dill to find opportunities to involve youth. Dill replied that his staff looks for opportunities for job shadowing and other youth involvement in every aspect of the county’s operation, not just this space plan. Sizemore acknowledged that Dill has been helpful in that regard. He also noted that the Washtenaw International High School is looking for summer internship opportunities.

Conan Smith recalled the lengthy discussion on the overall space plan that was held at the board’s March 20, 2013 working session, saying that he had the materials from that session. He wondered if there was another document that articulates the strategic infrastructure plan. Dill indicated that the same materials from the working session were the basis for the current plan.

Smith then noted that in the conversations he’s had with Dill, they hadn’t talked about divesting the Platt Road property. “We have not talked about that,” Dill confirmed. “Of course that is a decision that this body will undertake. We made no plans for the disposal of that property, except to get a formal appraisal of the site.”

Smith also confirmed with Dill that the vote being taken that night was to approve a planning process for the site, as well as demolition of the buildings.

Outcome: The board unanimously gave initial approval to the facilities space plan, with a final vote expected on July 10.

Millage Rates

The board had given initial approval on May 15, 2013 to set Washtenaw County’s 2013 general operating millage rate at 4.5493 mills – unchanged from the current rate. The item was on the June 5 agenda for a final vote.

Several other county millages were part of the same resolution and are levied separately: emergency communications (0.2000 mills), the Huron Clinton Metroparks Authority (0.2146 mills), two for county parks and recreation (0.2353 mills and 0.2367 mills) and for the natural areas preservation program (0.2409 mills). That brings the total county millage rate to 5.6768 mills, a rate that’s also unchanged from 2012.

This is an annual procedural action, not a vote to levy new taxes. With a few minor exceptions, the county board does not have authority to levy taxes independently. Millage increases, new millages or an action to reset a millage at its original rate (known as a Headlee override) would require voter approval.

The rates will be included on the July tax bills for property owners in Washtenaw County.

Millage Rates: Public Hearing

The only speaker at a public hearing on the millage rates was Thomas Partridge. He said the millage revenues were insufficient to provide for the needs of county residents. The board has been bereft of ideas to support affordable housing, public transportation, health care and other needs, he said. He suggested proposing a Headlee override.

Outcome: Without discussion, the board gave final approval to set the county’s millage rates.

Gun Violence Awareness

Commissioners were asked to pass a resolution declaring June 2013 as Gun and Societal Violence Awareness Month.

The resolution stated that the board “supports President Barack Obama’s continued efforts to reduce gun violence through enhanced background checks, restricted sales of some types of ammunition and high capacity magazines; and … further supports the reduction of societal violence through the development of proactive programs that will educate citizens on non-violent conflict resolution and allow physicians to prevent firearm and other violence related injuries through health screening, patient counseling, and referral to mental health services for those with behavioral or emotional medical conditions.”

According to county records, applications for concealed pistol licenses in Washtenaw County have increased dramatically so far this year. There were 1,510 applications for the first four months of 2013, compared to 717 applications during the same period in 2012. For the full 12-month period in 2012, the county received 2,153 applications – compared to 546 in 2007. [.pdf of application data from 2004-2013] [.pdf of approved licenses from 2008-2013]

The June 5 resolution was brought forward by board chair Yousef Rabhi and commissioner Conan Smith – both Democrats representing districts in Ann Arbor.

Gun Violence Awareness: Public Commentary

Kathy Fojtik Stroud of Ann Arbor spoke at the beginning of the June 5 meeting, and started by telling commissioners that she had figured out why the boardroom felt smaller – there were only nine commissioners now, compared to previous years when there had been more commissioners. [Redistricting took effect with the 2012 election, reducing the number of Washtenaw County districts from 11 to 9.]

Stroud was speaking on behalf of the Washtenaw County health code appeals board, an appointed body on which she serves. That board had passed a resolution urging county commissioners to pass the resolution in support of reducing gun violence and societal violence. Other groups – including the Interfaith Council on Peace & Justice, a lot of churches and other organizations – are supportive of this action, she said.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) noted that Stroud had served on the county board of commissioners in the 1970s, and he appreciated her service.

Gun Violence Awareness: Board Discussion

Yousef Rabhi highlighted the resolution, noting that there have been some very tragic gun-related deaths in the past few months. He thought that Washtenaw County should take a step in recognizing these acts as horrific, and in recognizing the need for the country to move forward with some sort of reform that can bring an end to this type of violence. He hoped commissioners would support it. There was no further comment from commissioners.

Outcome: The board unanimously passed the gun violence resolution.

SEMCOG Long-Range Plan

Yousef Rabhi also brought forward a resolution opposing the 2040 long-range regional transportation plan developed by the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG). Specifically, he opposes the recommendation to expand I-94 in Detroit and I-75 in Oakland County.

The resolved clauses stated:

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners opposes the inclusion of these highway capacity expansion projects in the 2040 Long-Range Plan.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners requests that funding currently programmed for these capacity projects be redirected to preventive maintenance and rehabilitation of existing roads and bridges, addressing critical safety needs, and enhancing quality of life.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution be transmitted to SEMCOG, the Michigan Department of Transportation, and State Senators Randy Richardville and Rebekah Warren, and State Representatives Gretchen Driskell, Jeff Irwin, David Rutledge, and Adam Zemke in advance of SEMCOG’s June 20, 2013, General Assembly meeting.

Rabhi noted that he had raised this issue at the board’s May 15, 2013 meeting. His concerns are social and environmental. The region shouldn’t be building more roads for cars. Instead more alternative forms of transportation should be built. The highway system has already destroyed neighborhoods and impeded economic development in certain areas, and this expansion would only continue that.

A more conservative mindset, Rabhi said, would argue against investing in new infrastructure at a time when governments can’t maintain the existing infrastructure – including a crumbling bridge and road system. At SEMCOG’s executive committee meeting in May, Rabhi said he voted against the long-range plan, and he intends to vote against it at the entity’s general assembly later in June. He believes that both progressive and conservative minds can find reasons to oppose this plan.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. wondered how this plan related to the southeast Michigan regional transit authority (RTA), of which Washtenaw County is a part. He hoped the board would hold a working session on the RTA soon.

Rabhi explained that since SEMCOG’s funding can’t be used for transit, it doesn’t affect the RTA. It must be used on roads, but it could be used for repair rather than new construction, he said.

Conan Smith said he shared Rabhi’s concerns. The Washtenaw County road commission has a list of unfunded needs totaling $82 million. He criticized the idea that some of those dollars would be used to build new infrastructure at a time when the demand isn’t there, even based on SEMCOG’s own population projections.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved the resolution opposing SEMCOG’s long-range regional transportation plan.

Dexter Annexation

Commissioners were asked to set a public hearing for July 10, 2013 regarding the annexation of land from Scio Township into the village of Dexter. Commissioners are expected to vote on the annexation that same night.

According to the county’s corporation counsel, Curtis Hedger, the annexation of township property into a village is one of the few instances that requires county board approval. Generally, annexation is handled by the individual municipalities where the annexation occurs.

A letter to the county from Dexter village manager Donna Dettling states that the annexation request – for a 16.66-acre property – was made by the property owner, Dexter Fastener Technologies, known as Dextech. The land is adjacent to the Dexter Business & Research Park, where Dextech hopes to expand. The company is one of Dexter’s largest employers.

On May 13, 2013, the Dexter village council unanimously passed a resolution in support of the annexation. The resolution indicates that although the Scio Township board did not take formal action about the request, there was generally support for the action. [.pdf of communications from Dexter regarding the annexation]

Outcome: Without discussion, commissioners set the annexation hearing for July 10.

Jarvis Stone School

The county board was asked to designate Jarvis Stone School in Salem Township as an historic district. The building is a former one-room schoolhouse built in 1857 and located at 7991 North Territorial Road.

Specifically, the board was asked to approve an ordinance that designates the 1.42-acre property as an historic district under the jurisdiction of the Washtenaw County Historic District Commission. [.pdf of proposed ordinance] The property is owned by the Salem Area Historical Society, which uses the school as its headquarters. It would be the second historic district in Salem Township. The first one is Conant Farm on Napier Road.

The Salem Township board had granted a request to consider the property as an historic district in 2011. And at its Oct. 19, 2011 meeting, the county board voted to establish a study committee regarding the request. That report was completed this year. [.pdf of study committee report]

Jarvis Stone School: Public Commentary

Terry Cwik, president of the Salem Area Historical Society, described the process that had been undertaken, calling it a team effort of a volunteer group. Cwik praised two county staff members – Cynthia Christensen and Melissa Milton-Pung – who had provided guidance on developing the final report. About 25-30 people had attended a public meeting in January about this project, giving only positive feedback and input, he said. And the Salem Township board has voted unanimously in support of the ordinance to create the historic district. Cwik hoped that commissioners would make Jarvis Stone School the county’s 13th historic district, and that the county would continue to preserve its past into the future.

Marcia Van Fossen, vice president of the Salem Area Historical Society, also spoke in support of the new district. She noted that a previous member of the county board lives in Salem Township, and she hoped that it would influence the board’s decision to approve the new district. [Van Fossen was alluding to Alma Wheeler Smith, who is also the mother of current county commissioner Conan Smith.]

In responding to Van Fossen’s remarks, Conan Smith quipped: “My mom told me to vote yes.”

Alicia Ping thanked Cwik and Van Fossen for their work, noting that she had served on the Saline Historical District Commission for 11 years. It takes a lot of work to make something like this happen, she said.

Jarvis Stone School: Board Discussion

Conan Smith questioned why this proposal wasn’t first brought forward for initial approval at the board’s ways & means committee meeting, rather than just receiving one final vote at the board meeting that night. Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, explained that because the county doesn’t have original jurisdiction over historic districts, this type of resolution has always gone directly to the board meeting. He explained how the process works. First, a local government where the proposed historic district would be located contacts the county, starting the process in motion. The county’s historic district commission studies the proposal, then makes a recommendation to the county board.

Hedger said he’s reviewed all the previous historic districts that the county has created, including Gordon Hall in the Dexter area. The county is simply doing what it’s contractually obligated to do, he said. Although the county is creating a new ordinance, it’s a very specific type of ordinance, outlined in the state enabling legislation for county historical district commissions.

Smith said he was fully supportive of creating the district for Jarvis Stone School, but he was concerned that there hadn’t been sufficient public notice about it. He asked for the opinion of Dan Smith, who represents District 2, where the historic school is located.

Dan Smith replied that he had received emails from Terry Cwik of the Salem Area Historical Society, notifying him that this process was moving forward. D. Smith indicated that others in the community had been contacted as well about the process.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved creating the Jarvis Stone School historic district.

Community Corrections Plan

At their June 5 meeting, commissioners were asked to approve an annual community corrections plan with a $1,042,468 budget for FY 2013-14 – from Oct. 1, 2013 through Sept. 30, 2014. [.pdf of community corrections plan]

The community corrections division is a unit of the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office, with an emphasis on programs and services aimed at keeping people out of jail by providing sentencing options for the Washtenaw County trial court – including pre-trial services, drug testing, electronic monitoring, and social education. The funding comes from several sources: (1) $421,900 in state revenue; (2) $260,890 in program-generated fees; (3) $240,983 in appropriations from the county’s general fund; and (4) $118,703 from fund balance.

According to a staff memo, an estimated 99,365 jail bed days were saved in 2012, for an estimated savings of $8.446 million – based on an estimate of $85 per day for incarceration. [.pdf of staff memo]

Outcome: Without discussion, commissioners gave both initial and final approval to the community correction plan.

Brownfield Public Hearings

On the agenda were resolutions to set public hearings for July 10 regarding two brownfield redevelopment projects in Ann Arbor – at Packard Square (the former Georgetown Mall), and 544 Detroit St.

Since the city of Ann Arbor joined the Washtenaw County Brownfield Redevelopment Authority (WCBRA) in 2002, brownfield projects located in the city must receive approval by the county board. The state’s brownfield program offers incentives for redevelopment of property that’s contaminated, blighted or “functionally obsolete.”

The 544 Detroit St. project is seeking brownfield status so that it will be eligible for brownfield tax increment financing. The site plan calls for a three-story “flatiron-style” building, located at the triangle tip of Detroit and North Division, just southwest of the Broadway bridge – the site of a long-abandoned gas station in the Old Fourth ward Historic District. The new building would include offices on the first floor and residences on the upper two floors. The project’s site plan received a recommendation for approval by the Ann Arbor planning commission on Dec. 18, 2012. Both the site plan and brownfield plan are expected to be on the council’s June 17 agenda, according to city planning manager Wendy Rampson.

For Packard Square, the July 10 hearing relates to a proposed amendment to the project’s original brownfield redevelopment plan, which the county board approved after much debate on May 18, 2011. At that same meeting, the board approved a $1 million grant application to the state Dept. of Environmental Quality for brownfield cleanup at the proposed $50 million development – that grant was later awarded to the project. Demolition is underway, with plans to build more than 200 apartments and 20,000 square feet of commercial space at 2502-2568 Packard Street.

The amendment to Packard Square’s brownfield plan would add eligible activities that qualify for brownfield tax increment financing, including underground parking and urban stormwater management infrastructure. Those activities are now eligible for TIF, following changes by the state legislature to the Brownfield Redevelopment Act 381 in December 2012.

Outcome: The public hearings for both projects were set for July 10, when the county board will likely take action on both brownfield items. The vote on the Packard Square hearing was unanimous. For the 544 Detroit St. hearing, the board’s two Republican commissioners – Alicia Ping and Dan Smith – cast the only votes of dissent. They did not publicly state their reasons for voting against the hearing on that project. In the past, they and other commissioners have expressed concern about the diversion of property tax revenues through TIF districts. While the Packard Square TIF already exists, the TIF for 544 Detroit would be new.

Communications & Commentary

During the evening there were multiple opportunities for communications from the administration and commissioners, as well as public commentary. In addition to issues reported earlier in this article, here are some other highlights.

Communications & Commentary: Head Start

Dan Smith highlighted an item in the claims report related to Head Start. He asked for a brief update on the situation with Head Start. [For the period April 27 through May 17, 2013, a total of $13,014 had been paid in claims related to the Head Start program.]

County administrator Verna McDaniel reported that federal officials have begun negotiating with the Washtenaw Intermediate School District (WISD) about taking over the local Head Start operation. A notice has been issued to grant WISD the funding to support Head Start, she said. The county has been instructed to negotiate a transfer of assets.

In response to a query from Ronnie Peterson, McDaniel said that leasing the county’s Head Start facility to WISD is probably the best option at this point. Peterson said he was concerned about the location of the Head Start program, and wanted to make sure it stayed close to those who need it most.

By way of background, in 2011 the board voted to relinquish the county’s 46-year administration of the program on July 31, 2012. But the transition to a new administrator – a process overseen by the federal Head Start program – hasn’t moved as quickly as expected. So the county agreed to a one-year extension to continue administering the program, through July 31, 2013.

The county-owned Head Start building at 1661 Leforge in Ypsilanti was built in 2003. The 17,500-square-foot building on 10 acres of land is tied to the early childhood program. The county still owes about $2.6 million on the bond for the building, and makes $167,000 in bond payments annually. The bond payment schedule runs through 2022.

Communications & Commentary: County Budget

Felicia Brabec, chair of the board’s ways & means committee, reviewed activity related to developing a four-year budget for the county, from 2014-2017. Most of the update related to the bond proposal, which is reported earlier in this article.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. noted that Dick Fleece, the city’s public health director, plans to retire at the end of 2013. Sizemore felt it might be a good opportunity to review the entire public health department, before filling that position. He suggested scheduling a working session on that topic.

Communications & Commentary: Road Commission

As liaison to the county road commission, Rolland Sizemore Jr. reported that the commission is forming a committee to look at the condition of roads throughout the county. He’ll be serving on that.

Somewhat related, Sizemore – who also serves on the board of the Ypsilanti Area Convention & Visitors Bureau – had copies of a guide that was put out of routes in Washtenaw County for motorcyclists.

Communications & Commentary: Public Commentary

Thomas Partridge spoke at the evening’s two opportunities for public commentary, in addition to the public hearings reported above. He generally criticized the board for not attending to important issues like affordable housing, public transportation, health care and taking care of the needs of the most vulnerable.

Present: Felicia Brabec, Andy LaBarre, Kent Martinez-Kratz, Ronnie Peterson, Alicia Ping, Yousef Rabhi, Rolland Sizemore Jr., Conan Smith, Dan Smith.

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public commentary is held at the beginning of each meeting, and no advance sign-up is required.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Washtenaw County board of commissioners. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

Victoria Powell, who spoke during public commentary to oppose oil and gas drilling using the technique called "fracking," talks with commissioner Leah Gunn at the April 4, 2012 Washtenaw County board of commissioners meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

Several residents spoke on the topic during public commentary, citing concerns over health, well contamination, property devaluation, and damaged roads caused by company tanker trucks, among other effects. They noted that state regulators aren’t providing adequate oversight or protection, and urged the board to take action.

Speakers included Mitch Rohde, CEO of Saline-based Quantum Signal and founder of “NoPaxton.com,” which has mobilized against drilling in this area by Paxton Resources, a company based in Gaylord, Mich. The company recently notified the county that it has filed an application with the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality for permission to drill an exploratory oil and natural gas well in Saline Township. [.pdf of notification letter]

Several commissioners thanked the speakers for coming and expressed their own intent to look into the issue, though it’s not clear what action can be taken at the county level. An April 19 working session will focus on the topic. That meeting begins at 6 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor.

In other items at the April 4 meeting, commissioners honored county dispatchers and got an update on cleanup from the March 15 tornado that touched down in the Dexter area. Marc Breckenridge, the county’s director of emergency management and homeland security, gave an estimate of $5 million in damages to private homes and property, and another $2 million in response costs – expenses incurred from the road commission, county workers, the sheriff’s office and others. The county intends to apply to the state for help in covering some of these costs.

Funding controlled by the state was key to another item on the April 4 agenda: A resolution urging state legislators not to eliminate the personal property tax, unless 100% replacement revenues are guaranteed. More than $40 million in PPT revenues are received by local units of government within Washtenaw County. Leah Gunn, who wrote the resolution, expressed skepticism that legislators would pay attention to the county’s concerns, but said it would at least send the message: ”Don’t mess with us.”

Two action items were related to the county’s criminal justice system. The board approved the appointment of Elisha V. Fink as magistrate of the 14A District Court. She’s filling a vacant part-time position previously held by Camille Horne, who left the job at the end of 2011. Commissioners also gave initial approval to hire Nimish Ganatra as an assistant prosecuting attorney at a salary of $81,690. The vacancy opened in December, following an employee retirement. The hire requires board approval because the salary is above the $69,038 midpoint of an authorized range. While several commissioners praised the hire and the office of county prosecuting attorney Brian Mackie, Wes Prater cast a dissenting vote. Citing ongoing budget challenges, he objected to hiring someone at an above-midpoint level.

Several other items were handled during the meeting, including: (1) final approval for the county to become a charter member of the Washtenaw Health Initiative, at an annual cost of $10,000; (2) initial approval to accept federal grants for the county’s weatherization program for low-income residents; and (3) acceptance of federal grants for local workforce development programs.

During public commentary, Douglas Smith talked about a lawsuit he’s filed against the county over a denial of his Freedom of Information Act request. The FOIA related to a surveillance video of an incident in Ypsilanti Township involving the theft of $20 from a court employee’s car – Smith alleges the money was taken by a high-level staffer with the sheriff’s office. Smith has spoken about this issue at previous board meetings, asking the board to intervene.

“Fracking” in Washtenaw County

Concerns about proposed oil and gas drilling in the Saline area using a technique known as “fracking” were raised by several speakers during public commentary at the April 4 meeting. Similar concerns had been voiced by commissioners at previous meetings, and the board plans to hold an April 19 working session on the topic.

“Fracking” in Washtenaw County: Public Commentary

Kurk Gleichman of Pittsfield Township told commissioners that a growing number of people have concerns about the practice of hydraulic fracturing, and are often discouraged by the influence that the oil and gas industry has on federal, state and sometimes local officials. Some communities have passed ordinances that ban the practice, he noted. Initially, local officials believed that they couldn’t pass laws that are stronger than state law, he said, but such laws can be instituted for the safety and security of residents. He reported that several groups in the community have formed, including NoPaxton.com and Ban Michigan Fracking. They support a ban on fracking, as well as a ban on waste generated from the practice, which is also a problem.

Victoria Powell, an Adrian resident, highlighted the impact of oil and gas drilling on the water supply. No one is addressing the issue of water depravation and contamination, she said, and it’s already a critical issue. She applauded the recent unanimous vote by the county road commission to reject drilling on property it owns in Saline Township.

Powell held up a map of Michigan that showed all the sites of existing underground storage tanks that are leaking. [The state Dept. of Environmental Quality provides an online searchable database to identify the location of leaking underground tanks. For example, a search for such sites in Ann Arbor yielded a list of 58 locations.] Last year, Jackson County – west of and adjacent to Washtenaw County – was the top crude oil-producing county in Michigan, Powell said. None of it is being used domestically, she contended. Many of the 42 wells in that county are near wetlands, but the DEQ says that drilling there is acceptable, Power reported.

Powell also spoke during a second opportunity for public commentary later in the meeting. She said the DEQ is thriving because it gets revenue from the hundreds of drilling permits it issues. Hal Fitch – chief of the DEQ’s office of oil, gas and minerals – is the single person to decide whether permits are issued, she said. Environmental impact studies must be done before drilling can occur, but those studies are done by the oil and gas companies, Powell said. There are currently about 18,000 wells in the state and less than three dozen inspectors who are supposed to inspect each well twice a year. Powell said she didn’t see how they could do that. There have been successful ordinances passed in cities like Pittsburgh and Buffalo that protect communities. She noted that if a property owner signs a contract with an oil or gas company allowing mineral exploration, they give away control of their property. Some lenders require notification of that, she said, and if you don’t provide it, you might be considered in default of your mortgage.

Powell concluded by noting that a meeting was being held in the Jackson County town of Brooklyn the next evening, featuring Chris Grobbel of Grobbel Environmental, who also teaches at Michigan State University. She suggested that commissioners might want to ask him to come to one of their meetings, too.

Brent Bartson of Lodi Township said he came to ask for help. As a property owner, he felt threatened by the risk that oil companies were posing to his health and the community’s health. Four wells had been drilled in Saline Township that use an acidizing technique. It’s not technically fracking, but it’s “fracking in sheep’s clothing,” he said. Bartson asked the board to adopt a resolution similar to one recently approved by the Wayne County commission, which called for a statewide and national ban on hydraulic fracturing for natural gas. It would send a strong message to the state and the rest of the community that Washtenaw County is environmentally conscientious and doesn’t want this kind of risk imposed on its citizens. He suggested that rights-based ordinances – like those enacted in New York and Pennsylvania – have withstood legal scrutiny in court, and that might be a good place to start, he said.

Mitch Rohde identified himself as CEO of Saline-based Quantum Signal, which he said has added more than 40 jobs over the past decade. He’s also founder of “NoPaxton.com,” which has mobilized against drilling in this area by Paxton Resources, a company based in Gaylord, Mich.

Rohde said he was approached in October about the possibility of licensing the mineral rights on his property. After looking into it, he said what he found was frightening: drilling that resulted in well contamination and property devaluation, and damaged roads caused by company tanker trucks, among other effects. He noted that there is insufficient state regulation and oversight of these activities – he has no confidence in the DEQ. He urged the board to take action not just symbolically, but to enact serious measures that have worked in other communities.

“Fracking” in Washtenaw County: Board Discussion

There was no agenda item related to this topic, but several commissioners responded to the public commentary.

Yousef Rabhi began by thanking the residents for coming and speaking out about their concerns. He called it one of the most important issues facing this community, and noted that there’s already been an example of industrial contamination – the 1,4 dioxane contamination of underground aquifers caused by the former Gelman Sciences manufacturing plant in Scio Township. Court-ordered cleanup of that contamination has been going on for years. It’s important to be aware of current threats to property rights and health, he said, but also to be aware of future threats – in some cases, the impact of contaminants might not be known for many years.

Commissioner Yousef Rabhi pointed out that the county has received a communication from Paxton Resources indicating its intent to drill in Saline Township.

Rabhi wanted the speakers to know that they have a lot of support among commissioners. It’s important to take a stand against these companies, he said, though it seems like the state is on the side of the industry, and is not protecting citizens. He said that he and others have met with county staff to talk about what can be done, and there are a lot of hurdles to action. The consensus is that at the county level, there’s nothing meaningful that can be done, he said.

Rabhi pointed out that Paxton Resources has notified the county that it has filed an application with the MDEQ to drill an exploratory oil and natural gas well in Saline Township. [.pdf of notification letter] Dialogue still needs to occur, he said, and he reported that the board plans to hold an April 19 working session on the issue. [Rabhi is chair of the working sessions.]

Barbara Bergman echoed Rabhi’s comments, and added that she’s concerned for her children and grandchildren. The nation’s willingness to harm others because of its insatiable energy needs doesn’t make sense, she said.

Conan Smith noted that Wes Prater has prepared a resolution similar to one passed last year by the Wayne County board of commissioners, which called for a statewide and national ban on hydraulic fracturing for natural gas. Smith said they could discuss the issue at the April 19 working session, then take up the resolution at a subsequent board meeting. The board will take whatever action it can, he added, and try to identify ways to make an actual impact.

Leah Gunn said that fresh water is one of the most precious resources, and when it’s polluted, “it’s over.”

Felicia Brabec noted that the speakers during public commentary are on the “front lines” of this issue, and have a better understanding than commissioners about what’s happening in their community related to fracking. She expressed interest in bringing some of the speakers back to the podium to answer questions, but Rolland Sizemore Jr. – who was chairing the meeting – didn’t take that suggestion. He pointed out that they’d be having more discussion at the April 19 working session, and asked that elected officials from other local units of government in the county be invited to attend.

Noting that the drilling was focused on her district, Alicia Ping said it seemed like any action the board took would have less impact than action at the city or township level, but commissioners need to continue looking into it.

Prater observed that state regulations for drilling are set out in a document that’s only three pages long. The board can pressure Lansing to make oil and gas companies step up and do inspections. The National Association of Counties (NACO) has started looking into the issue, he said, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is doing a study that will be released in 2014. “Well, we can’t wait until 2014,” Prater said. At the very least, the county needs to ensure that inspections are happening, he concluded, even though ”they certainly don’t have much to enforce.”

Rabhi criticized the state’s office of oil, gas and minerals, which is responsible for issuing drilling permits. The office is funded based on how much oil and gas is extracted – why should you trust people who are funded this way? It’s very alarming and adds to the reasons why citizens must be vigilant, he said.

Conan Smith defended DEQ staff, saying that he knew several state regulators and they care about the environment. He said the agency is grossly underfunded. There’s no question that there’s a flaw in the funding mechanism, but he would hate to impugn their integrity as public servants for something that’s beyond their control.

Honoring County Dispatchers

At their March 21 meeting, commissioners had authorized up to $500,000 from capital reserves to fund disaster relief and assistance to residents impacted by the March 15 tornado in the Dexter area. At the April 4 meeting, a resolution was on the agenda tangentially related to that disaster, honoring Washtenaw County dispatchers and declaring the week of April 8-14 as National Public Safety Telecommunicator Week in Washtenaw County.

Sheriff Jerry Clayton, left, and Washtenaw County prosecuting attorney Brian Mackie talk with three dispatch employees – Sandy Petrimoulx, Rochelle Noonan and Sarah Taylor – who were on hand to receive a resolution honoring the work of dispatchers in the county.

Although the board passes a similar resolution annually at this time of year, the recent disaster response was highlighted during a presentation to the board by Marc Breckenridge, the county’s director of emergency management and homeland security. Commissioners asked Breckenridge to begin by giving an update on conditions in that part of the county.

The F3 tornado had destroyed 13 homes, seriously damaged several more, and caused minor damage to hundreds of homes and property, Breckenridge said. Crews from the county road commission and DTE were especially critical in getting the community back to normal, he said. Fire service and other emergency personnel had come together quickly and accounted for everyone – there were no serious injuries or deaths. The outdoor warning sirens and media coverage of the tornado were helpful in getting the word out to people so that they could take cover, he said.

Now, the focus has shifted to long-term recovery and assessing damage, Breckenridge said. He estimated that there are about $5 million in damages to private homes and property, and another $2 million in response costs – expenses incurred from the road commission, county workers, the sheriff’s office and others.

Yousef Rabhi asked where the funds would come from to pay for the $2 million in response costs. The county has committed up to $500,000 and the road commission is paying another $250,000, he noted. What are the other sources?

Initially, that state had indicated that no funds were available under Section 19 of the Michigan Emergency Management Act, Breckenridge said. However, state Rep. Mark Ouimet – whose district includes the Dexter area – had subsequently identified a line item of about $519,000 in state funds that had been set aside to help pay for emergency response at the local level. The funds are typically capped at $30,000 per unit of government, Breckenridge said.

Barbara Bergman noted that they might have identified that money, but wondered how it would be “wrested” out of Lansing. She observed that this is the reason people pay taxes – so that governments can respond to emergencies. She asked the people who opposed paying taxes to think about that.

The process has started to collect information and make a formal request for state funds, Breckenridge said. It’s a only little bit, he added, but they’ll take it. As an example, he noted that the Huron-Clinton Metroparks has submitted $350,000 for damage to its golf course.

County administrator Verna McDaniel reported that so far, only about $78,000 has been spent out of the $500,000 allocated last month by commissioners. She assured them that the staff will be very prudent and account for every dime that’s spent.

Bergman asked Breckenridge whether insurance companies are “ducking” their  obligations. He replied that he’s seen a lot of activity by insurance adjusters in the area, and insurance companies have engaged many of the construction crews that are working in the area.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. praised Breckenridge’s work, prompting Breckenridge to reply that it’s not a one-man effort. A lot of others did heavy lifting, he said. Sizemore also thanked sheriff Jerry Clayton, who attended the April 4 meeting in uniform. Sizemore alluded to Clayton’s work in consolidating dispatch operations between the county and the city of Ann Arbor. [The county board had approved the dispatch consolidation at its Jan. 18, 2012 meeting. The proposal had previously been authorized by the Ann Arbor city council on Dec. 5, 2011. For additional background, see Chronicle coverage: "Ann Arbor, Washtenaw: Joint 911 Dispatch?"]

Breckenridge then introduced three employees of the county’s dispatch operations: Sarah Taylor, dispatch operations coordinator; Rochelle Noonan, a new dispatch operations coordinator; and Sandy Petrimoulx, communications operator. Breckenridge noted that dispatchers on duty during the March 15 storm fielded 821 incoming calls between 5-9 p.m. One dispatcher handled about one per minute for a period, which Breckenridge described as a shocking number. It was outstanding performance from the crew, he said. “We’re very proud of them.”

Board chair Conan Smith read the resolution honoring the county’s dispatchers and declaring the week of April 8-14 as National Public Safety Telecommunicator Week in Washtenaw County. Commissioners gave the dispatchers a round of applause.

McDaniel stepped forward and read another resolution recognizing volunteers in the county, and declaring the week of April 15-21, 2012 as National Volunteer Week.

Message to Lansing: Don’t Cut Revenues

Commissioners considered a resolution at their April 4 meeting that asked state legislators to halt any bills that would eliminate the state’s personal property tax. More than $40 million in PPT revenues are received by local units of government within Washtenaw County.

The resolution calls the potential loss of PPT revenue “devastating,” and states that such a loss would ”severely reduce the level of services by the local governments, including but not limited to public safety, transportation, libraries, schools, and local infrastructure.” [.pdf of initial resolution]

Message to Lansing: Don’t Cut Revenues – Board Discussion

Alicia Ping began the discussion by proposing an amendment that would specify not eliminating the PPT unless there is 100% replacement of those PPT revenues. She said she didn’t object to eliminating the PPT per se, but wanted to ensure that the revenues were replaced if that tax were eliminated. It was considered a friendly amendment.

Yousef Rabhi said that the 100% revenue replacement shouldn’t rely on the whims of state legislators. Local units of government need to be give options to raise their own revenues, he said. They shouldn’t have to rely on decisions made in Lansing, like those related to revenue-sharing, which has been chronically uncertain.

Leah Gunn noted that there’s been talk in the past about pushing for options as Rabhi suggested – like getting the ability to tax football tickets, for example – but it never goes anywhere. She said their resolution should simply ask for 100% revenue replacement.

Rabhi then suggested adding the word “guarantee,” which was also taken as a friendly amendment.

Wes Prater wondered how the amount of revenue replacement would be determined. Gunn replied that it would be based on the PPT revenues currently received, but noted that the issue “probably isn’t going to go anywhere.” The resolution is simply saying to state legislators “Don’t mess with us,” she said.

Outcome: The resolution was approved as amended, with Dan Smith abstaining from the vote. Rob Turner was absent.

14A District Court Magistrate

A resolution to appoint Elisha V. Fink as magistrate of the 14A District Court was on the April 4 county board agenda. Fink is filling a vacant part-time position previously held by Camille Horne, who left the job at the end of 2011.

14A-2 District Court judge Kirk Tabbey and Elisha Fink, who was appointed magistrate for the 14A District Court by the county board.

The 14A District Court serves all of Washtenaw County, with the exception of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti Township. (Ann Arbor is served by the 15th District Court. Ypsilanti Township cases are heard in the 14B District Court.)

Fink has served as managing attorney with Fink Law in Dexter. Her practice has focused on family law, but she also has experience in the areas of business law, criminal law, real estate law, and civil litigation in the local courts. She is a graduate of the Thomas M. Cooley Law School. [.pdf of Fink's resumé]

Both Fink and Kirk Tabbey, the judge who presides over the 14A-2 District Court in Ypsilanti, attended the April 4 meeting and were invited to the podium to address the board. Tabbey noted that Fink has been involved with the court for some time, and Fink said she was looking forward to the opportunity of working as magistrate.

Commissioner Rolland Sizemore Jr. asked whether Fink could keep the judges in line – he seemed to be joking. Conan Smith ventured that now Fink could fix his tickets, a comment which drew laughs from others in the room. Fink revealed that her son had come home the previous night with a ticket that will be dealt with in the 14A District Court, and she’d told him she wouldn’t even go with him to the courtroom – it was his responsibility.

Outcome: Elisha Fink was appointed as 14A District Court magistrate in a unanimous vote. Rob Turner was absent.

Washtenaw Health Initiative

A resolution giving final approval for the county to become a charter member of the Washtenaw Health Initiative (WHI) was on the April 4 agenda. The effort aims to expand health care coverage for the county’s low-income residents. The membership includes a $10,000 annual fee in both 2012 and 2013, which would be funded through the county’s office of community and economic development.

The board has been briefed on the initiative, most recently at a Feb. 16, 2012 working session. The plan is intended to help local health care providers handle an influx of an estimated 50,000 newly insured patients when federal health care reforms take effect in 2014. The goal is to develop a plan to provide better health care for the county’s low-income residents, the uninsured and people on Medicaid – prior to changes that will be mandated by the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

The WHI is a collaboration co-chaired by former county administrator Bob Guenzel and retired University of Michigan treasurer Norman Herbert. The effort is jointly sponsored by the UM Health System and Saint Joseph Mercy Health System, and facilitated by Marianne Udow-Phillips, director of the Center for Healthcare Research & Transformation – a joint venture of UM and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan.

Other partners involved in the project include the Washtenaw Health Plan, the Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti Regional Chamber of Commerce, Arbor Hospice, Catholic Social Services, Dawn Farm, Hope Clinic, Huron Valley Ambulance, Integrated Health Associates, Packard Health, Planned Parenthood of Mid and South Michigan, United Way of Washtenaw County, and the Women’s Center of Southeastern Michigan. A full list of partners is on the WHI’s website.

Organizers say they hope this initiative will become a model for other communities nationwide that are facing similar issues.

Washtenaw Health Initiative: Board Discussion

Alicia Ping had dissented on an initial vote taken at the board’s March 21 meeting, saying she preferred funds to go directly to services, not for administrative purposes. She again raised concerns before the final vote.

County commissioners Alicia Ping and Wes Prater.

Ping asked if other members would also be paying $10,000. County administrator Verna McDaniel replied that some of the other members are paying, and that she’d get that information for commissioners. Yousef Rabhi reported that the two hospitals – UM and St. Joe’s – are each putting in $30,000 annually.

Barbara Bergman said the WHI is working hard to prepare for the impact of the Affordable Care Act, assuming its provisions are upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. There will be a major influx of new patients who are eligible for Medicaid, she noted.

Wes Prater asked what the funding will be used for. There seemed some uncertainty at this point. Representatives from WHI – including former county administrator Bob Guenzel and Ellen Rabinowitz, director of the Washtenaw Health Plan – had attended the March 21 meeting, as most board discussion on agenda items occurs at that time. But no one was on hand to field questions on April 4. Conan Smith ventured that the WHI is conducting research, and that’s likely where the money will be initially spent.

Prater then asked if the WHI had already been formed as a nonprofit. Bergman said it’s not set up as a charitable organization – it’s a collaborative. Leah Gunn then called the question, a procedural move to end discussion.

Peter Simms, deputy county clerk, began the roll call vote on the resolution by asking: “Commissioner Bergman, how do you feel about that?” The unusually informal query drew laughs from commissioners, with Bergman indicating that she felt supportive.

Outcome: On a 9-1 vote, the board gave final approval to become a charter WHI member, with dissent from Alicia Ping. Rob Turner was absent.

Workforce Development Funding

A resolution giving final approval to three items related to Washtenaw County’s administration of the Michigan Works workforce development program was on the April 4 agenda. The items received initial approval at the board’s March 21 meeting.

The board was asked to authorize acceptance of a $92,309 federal grant to operate a local Michigan Works service center. The primary location in Washtenaw County is the Career Transition Center at 301 W. Michigan Ave. (the KeyBank building) in Ypsilanti. Additional services are offered at the Harriet Street Service Center at 304 Harriet St. in Ypsilanti.

Another $16,000 federal grant would fund ongoing professional and partnership development of the local Michigan Works operation.

The third item asked commissioners to ratify a mandatory 2012 “system plan” for the local Michigan Works office. The plan provides annual documentation of local administrative policies and procedures for the employment and training programs, as well as for other documentation required in order to receive funding as a workforce development agency. [Link to .pdf of the complete system plan for 2012][Link to .pdf of required grievance procedure documentation]

There was no board discussion on these items.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to give final approval to the workforce development items. Rob Turner was absent.

Assistant Prosecutor Hiring & Salary

Commissioners were asked to give initial approval to hiring an assistant prosecuting attorney at a salary of $81,690. The vacancy opened in December, following an employee retirement. The hire requires board approval because the salary is above the $69,038 midpoint of an authorized range ($68,074 to $96,565). Because of furlough days negotiated as part of the recent collective bargaining agreements, his salary will be adjusted down by 3.846% to $78,548.

Nimish Ganatra, standing, talks with Marc Breckenridge, the county's director of emergency management and homeland security. An agenda item related to Ganatra's hiring as assistant county prosecutor was on the April 4 agenda.

The candidate for the position is Nimish Ganatra, who currently serves as assistant prosecutor for Jackson County, and previously was an assistant prosecutor with the Washtenaw County prosecutor’s office from 2001-2009. He is a graduate of Ann Arbor Pioneer High School, the University of Michigan, and Wayne State University Law School. [.pdf of Ganatra's resumé]

Brian Mackie, the county’s prosecuting attorney, praised Ganatra, highlighting an award he’d won for prosecuting domestic violence cases as an assistant district attorney in Worchester County, Mass. Mackie also noted that his office had recently lost two long-time employees: Don Ray, who retired last year after more than 30 years with the county; and Joe Burke, who was appointed earlier this year by the governor to serve a judicial vacancy in the 15th District Court.

Mackie said it was fortunate that Ganatra was willing to return to Washtenaw County.

Ganatra spoke briefly, saying it had been a pleasure to work for the county for nine years and that he looked forward to coming back.

Assistant Prosecutor Hiring & Salary: Board Discussion

Wes Prater said he couldn’t support the hire because the salary was well above midpoint. The county’s budgets won’t get any easier, he said, and there’s still the need to tighten spending.

Prater also said he was disappointed that Mackie didn’t replace Burke with an internal promotion. But Mackie pointed out that Burke’s position was filled with the internal promotion of Steven Hiller. Mackie also told commissioners that because the office is currently under-filling a senior assistant prosecutor post, there is an overall savings of $12,983. Another hire is being made at a base salary rate.

Several commissioners expressed strong support for the hiring of Ganatra. Dan Smith said he was very supportive of this hire and of the work done by the county prosecutor’s office. It’s sobering to hear about the cases that the office handles, Smith said, and he thanked Mackie for that work to keep the people of Washtenaw County safe.

Yousef Rabhi called Ganatra’s resumé impressive, and said that since Ganatra had previously worked for the county for nine years, in some ways it did feel like an internal promotion. Rolland Sizemore Jr. said he shared some of Prater’s concerns, but appreciated that Ganatra would be living in Washtenaw County. [Sizemore frequently stresses his view that it's important for county employees to be residents here as well.]

Outcome: The initial approval passed on a 9-1, with dissent from Wes Prater. Rob Turner was absent. A final vote is expected at the board’s April 18 meeting.

Weatherization Grants

Two items related to federal funding for Washtenaw County’s weatherization program for low-income residents were on the April 4 agenda for initial approval.

Commissioners were asked to authorize acceptance of $185,326 in federal funds for the weatherization program. The federal program was cut by 65% compared to 2011, but the state of Michigan is reallocating the previous year’s unspent funds as “carry-forwards” for 2012. In 2011, the county received $241,863 for this program.

According to a staff memo, the funding is expected to provide air leakage testing, health and safety evaluations, furnace assessments, refrigerator efficiency testing, post-inspection of the completed work, and consumer education services to 25 units. To qualify for the program, residents must have an income at or below 200% of federal poverty, which is about $44,700 for a family of four.

In a separate item, commissioners were asked to authorize acceptance of an additional $103,600 in funds redistributed to the county through the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act (ARRA). According to a staff memo, this grant brings the total of ARRA weatherization funds received by the county to $4,867,138.

Weatherization Grants: Board Discussion

Wes Prater asked about the process for selecting recipients of the weatherization work. He said he hoped that priority was given to people who lived in the homes.

Aaron Kraft, who manages the program, said the applications are handled on a first come, first served basis. There’s a waiting list, and the grants being approved that night are already spoken for, he said. In response to another query, Kraft said that less than half of all contractors being used for the weatherization work of based in Washtenaw County.

In response to a follow-up question from a Chronicle reader (based on the Civic News Ticker report on this item), Kraft gave a more detailed breakdown of how the $185,326 will be allocated: Support and administrative costs covering client intake/assessment of need, project management ($63,136); energy audit inspections and quality assurance inspections ($8,820); labor and material costs to complete the recommended weatherization improvements ($106,196); and weatherization specific training funding ($7,174).

He said it’s likely that more than 25 homes will be weatherized using this funding.

Outcome: The two weatherization items received initial approval from commissioners. Rob Turner was absent. A final vote is expected on April 18.

Public Commentary

In addition to the anti-fracking public commentary reported above, two other people addressed the board.

Douglas Smith told commissioners that he had been forced to file a lawsuit against the county over a denial of his Freedom of Information Act request. The FOIA related to a surveillance video of an incident that he says involves Dieter Heren, police services commander with the sheriff’s office. Smith has spoken about this at three previous board meetings in 2011 – on Nov. 16, Nov. 2 and Oct. 19 – asking for the board to intervene.

By way of background, Smith had filed a FOIA request with the county in October of 2011 regarding a March 2011 incident at Ypsilanti Township hall, where a court employee had reported that $20 was stolen out of her car in the parking lot. She had requested video surveillance footage, but instead of providing it to her, the building’s security officer had emailed the sheriff’s office, according to Smith. Smith contends that the incident prompted an internal investigation. His FOIA request for the video footage was denied on appeal to the county administrator. Smith’s lawsuit alleges violation of the state’s FOIA and seeks to compel the county to release the complete video.

Smith told commissioners that in February, he was finally shown a version of the video, but it had been altered. It showed Heren driving into the parking lot, Smith said, then getting out of his car and walking around the court employee’s vehicle. While part of the video was a continuous recording, he was told the section showing Heren at the car was taken by motion capture – that was given as an explanation for why there are frames missing from the video. However, Smith contends that the surveillance camera isn’t a motion capture camera.

Smith urged commissioners to not waste taxpayer money in defending this lawsuit, and to urge the county’s administration to settle it.

Thomas Partridge spoke twice. He called on the board to adopt a progressive democratic agenda, fitting of all religious-minded residents during this Easter season. He said he’d spoken at the Ann Arbor city council meeting earlier in the week, and had asked them “What would Jesus advocate?” Jesus would advocate for access to affordable housing, health care, and transportation for the neediest among us, Partridge said, including many in the middle class who are now struggling.

Later in the meeting, Partridge questioned why there’s been no investigation into deaths of people living in homes under the care of county health providers. He said commissioners should find out why no law enforcement agency has investigated these deaths.

Present: Barbara Bergman, Felicia Brabec, Leah Gunn, Alicia Ping, Wes Prater, Yousef Rabhi, Rolland Sizemore Jr., Conan Smith, Dan Smith, Ronnie Peterson

Absent: Rob Turner

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [confirm date] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public commentary is held at the beginning of each meeting, and no advance sign-up is required.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Washtenaw County board of commissioners. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

The 14A District Court serves all of Washtenaw County, with the exception of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti Township. (Ann Arbor is served by the 15th District Court. Ypsilanti Township cases are heard in the 14B District Court.)

Fink has served as managing attorney with Fink Law in Dexter. Her practice has focused on family law, but she also has experience in the areas of business law, criminal law, real estate law, and civil litigation in the local courts. She is a graduate of the Thomas M. Cooley Law School.

This brief was filed from the boardroom of the county administration building, 220 N. Main in Ann Arbor. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

A temporary sign at the entrance to the corrections complex off of Washtenaw Avenue east of Carpenter, site of the jail expansion and new district court facility.

Unexpected costs, construction delays and lower-than-expected interest earnings contributed to the shortfall, she said. An official request for additional funding will be made at the board’s June 2 meeting.

McDaniel divided the request into two categories: 1) $495,958 for additional costs related to the original project proposal, and 2) $861,000 in costs that are considered to be outside the scope of the originally approved project.

These expenses are in addition to the staffing request made earlier this year by sheriff Jerry Clayton, and approved by the board. The expanded jail eventually will require 39 more full-time workers, bringing the total corrections division staff to 103 employees. The additional staff will increase the corrections budget by $1.478 million this year and $3.248 million in 2011, and create a projected budget shortfall in 2012 and 2013.

Commissioners were informed that additional items not covered in these requests will be addressed during the planning process for the 2012 and 2013 budget cycle. No dollar amounts were provided for those anticipated expenses.

Washtenaw County Jail Expansion: A Brief History

In February 2005, voters in Washtenaw County were asked to endorse a 20-year millage proposal to raise $314 million to build a new jail and courts facility, as well as funds for operations. The proposal was championed by the county administrator at the time, Bob Guenzel, and put on the ballot by the county board of commissioners.

When it was overwhelmingly defeated at the polls, the county administration and board regrouped. In August 2005, commissioners authorized Guenzel to proceed with building a scaled-back expansion to the county jail and a new facility for the 14A-1 District Court, now located in a small building next to the jail, and authorized issuing a $30 million bond for the project.

A citizens group objected to the $30 million bond, saying it was too similar to the ballot initiative defeated earlier that year. The group – called the Save Our Sheriff (SOS) Committee – collected more than 17,000 signatures aimed at forcing a countywide referendum on the issue. The protest came in the context of disputes between the county administration and the sheriff at the time, Dan Minzey, over funding for operations as well as the cost of sheriff deputy patrols in the townships. In early 2006, commissioners dropped plans to issue that bond.

But in November 2006, the county board was ready to move ahead again, approving a $21.6 million bond issuance for the expansion. This time, no organized efforts were made against the proposal, and the bonds were sold in early 2007. Just over a year later, in March 2008, the board authorized another $12.6 million bond for the new 14A-1 District Court.

The projects are overseen by the county’s public safety and justice oversight committee, a group formed back in August 2005. Members of the committee include the county administrator, sheriff, chief judges of the 14th District Court and 22nd Circuit Court, and two county commissioners (currently board chair Rolland Sizemore Jr. and Ken Schwartz). The committee meets monthly and have authority to review and approve contracts, bills and other matters related to these capital projects.

According to a timeline provided to commissioners, inmates started occupying the new portion of the jail last month, and renovation is now underway in the older jail facility, to be completed by September. [The state Department of Corrections has rated the expanded jail at 444 beds. Of those, 112 beds are in the new facility. The total number won't be available until the existing jail units are renovated.] The sheriff’s offices are moving into the new facility this week. The new jail lobby will open in June, and the new court building will open in July.

In her presentation on May 20, county administrator Verna McDaniel said the committee had reviewed and approved making the current request for extra funding.

Jail, Court Additional Costs: Presentation

McDaniel said told commissioners that the original contingency for the $34.6 million project had been $1.753 million, or 5% of the total budget. Actual contingency expenses, however, totaled $3.23 million.

Those expenses included:

• $506,255 in higher-than-expected bids for the project.
• $547,190 in “soft costs” – snow removal, topographic surveys, blueprints and other items. Commissioners were provided with a five-page itemized listing of these expenses.
• $159,306 in adjustments requested by sheriff Jerry Clayton.
• $77,793 in adjustments requested by district court officials.
• $228,057 to Clark Construction Services, the project’s contractor, for extending the original project end date from May to September 2010.
• $1.712 million in construction change orders – $1.138 million for the jail, and $573,725 for the court. A packet distributed to commissioners included about 50 pages of itemized change orders.

The $3.23 million in expenses was offset by $1.52 million in cuts, McDaniel said. They include:

• $420,639 in cuts from adjusting the budget early on in the project. The bulk of that amount – $300,000 – came from eliminating some work on the new jail building entrance.
• $999,844 in savings from “value engineering” the project. Of that, a reduction of $600,000 from the budget came from pushing back the roof replacement on the existing jail. That work will be deferred until 2014. Some of the other cuts come from eliminating a snowmelt system ($33,943), reducing the size of insulated metal paneling ($46,000), reducing the cost of fencing in the intake/receiving area ($49,286) and making product substitutions at lower cost ($55,714).
• $100,000 in reduced costs for furniture, fixtures and equipment.

The $1.52 million in cuts – plus the original $1.753 million contingency – totaled $3.273 million, which covered the $3.23 million in total contingency expenses, McDaniel said, leaving a remaining contingency of $42,700.

However, the project will require another estimated $190,000 in contingency costs, McDaniel said. There’s also an anticipated shortfall in projected interest earnings of $218,855, and an $87,103 adjustment needed to reconcile records related to the two bonds (adjusting the budget to reflect the actual bond proceeds, not the projected amount). That brings the total needed to finish the project in its original scope to $495,958 – or 1.43% over the original budgeted amount.

McDaniel said she was requesting that the nearly half-million dollars be paid for out of the Facilities Operations & Maintenance fund, which has a balance of $781,796. Money had been set aside in the fund from operating surpluses in 2008 and 2009, stemming from staff cuts, lower energy costs and a shift to preventative maintenance.

Jail, Court Additional Costs: Commissioner Questions

Barbara Bergman said she’ll support the request, but added that she was very concerned. She noted that a fence had been built around a parking area, even though the majority of the board had indicated they did not want to build it. She wanted to know much had that cost. She also wondered if they planned to limit access to the parking within the fenced-in area – if so, they’d lose parking places for the general public, she noted.

Kristin Judge asked whether it was normal to have so many change orders on a project this size. Dave Shirley, the county’s operations and maintenance manager, told her that it was normal. Judge also wanted to know what the Facilities Operations & Maintenance fund would have been used for otherwise, if they didn’t have this shortfall. McDaniel said there was no other intended use for the fund.

Mark Ouimet recalled that when the construction work had “come out of the ground” – when the foundation and other underground work had been completed – he’d been told by staff that the project was either on budget or possibly under budget. He said he had questioned that at the time. He asked how McDaniel and her staff planned to manage the project going forward. It wasn’t a huge concern that they were 1.43% over budget, he said, but it was disconcerting to find out they were so far off from what they’d been told.

McDaniel replied that they would carefully monitor the situation. They’re at the punch-list portion of the project, she said, and they didn’t foresee any additional large expenses.

Ken Schwartz said he wanted to address these issues because he serves on the public safety and justice oversight committee, which oversees the project. There had been several unanticipated expenses, he said. When they started digging beneath the former parking lot, for example, they discovered water and sewer utilities that they didn’t know had been located there, as well as a vault from an old cemetery. That caused some delay, he said. They also ended up paying an unanticipated $100,000 watershed fee to the city of Ann Arbor, to allow the facilities to discharge water into the drainage system.

He noted that a new sheriff, Jerry Clayton, was elected in November 2008, after the project was underway. Clayton has an operational philosophy that in the long run will save the county money, Schwartz said, but it required some slight design changes. [Clayton outlined that philosophy and its implications on operations at a March 18, 2010 working session: "Sheriff Requests More Staff for Expanded Jail"]

Additional changes were demanded by the defense bar and judicial coordinating council, Schwartz said. And interest rates fell precipitously, he said – that’s something they’ve seen in other areas too, like the county’s retirement investments. Overall, he thought the staff had done a good job in managing the project.

Schwartz also addressed the fence issue that Bergman had raised. The lot was at an exit point for inmates, and the staff felt that additional security was needed. He described the fence as modest.

Bergman replied that the size wasn’t an issue – it should have come back to the board for approval. Part of the discussion is that some people are protected, she said, while others aren’t. As a public official, being exposed came with the territory, Bergman said, noting that her own home phone number is listed in the phone book. She said she planned to make a fuss over locking the fenced-in area.

Schwartz said the access to that area can be worked out, but noted that it was reasonable and modest protection, determined as necessary by professional staff.

Jail, Court Out-of-Scope Costs: Presentation

McDaniel also outlined an additional $861,000 request for items that are deemed necessary, but that fall outside the approved scope of the project:

• $165,000 to demolish the existing 14A-1 District Court building.
• $600,000 to reconfigure the Washtenaw Avenue entrance into the corrections campus. The entrance is shared with St. Luke Lutheran Church – the plan is to create a split in the drive for better traffic flow.
• $80,000 for a smoke extraction system in the jail.
• $16,000 for door handles in the jail’s intake area, in case workers need manual entrance or exit.

The demolition costs would be paid for out of the Facilities Operations & Maintenance fund. The Washtenaw entrance would be covered by funds from the 1/8th mill fund, which is used for maintenance projects and has a balance of $1.59 million. The smoke extraction system and door handles would be funded from the county’s risk management fund, which has a balance of $1.57 million.

There will be additional out-of-scope items that remain to be funded, according to a memo provided to commissioners. Those include soundproofing the existing jail cells, increasing the number of cameras in the existing jail, parking for the detective bureau, vehicle storage and an impound lot. It’s recommended that the funding for these items be addressed during the planning process for the 2012-2013 budget.

Jail, Court Out-of-Scope Costs: Commissioner Questions

Kristin Judge asked how confident they were in the estimates. McDaniel said the staff was being conservative, so that they wouldn’t have to return to commissioners for additional funding. Judge asked when the estimates had been made. Dave Shirley, the county’s operations and maintenance manager, said the demolition estimate had been made within the past 30 months, but the estimate for the Washtenaw Avenue entrance was from 2009. Judge requested that an updated estimate be obtained.

Judge also said she had concerns about security at the 14A-2 District Court in downtown Ypsilanti. Was that a question to address as part of this discussion? she asked. McDaniel said she’d prefer to handle that separately, at a later date.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. reported that he’d been working with Shirley to lower the cost of the demolition. He also said he planned to work with Kirk Tabbey, chief judge of the 14A District Court, and court administrator Gene DeRossett about the security issues that Judge had raised. [Both Tabbey and DeRossett attended Thursday's working session, but did not make a presentation to the board.]

Sizemore then asked Shirley why they needed to keep Clark Construction on until September – wasn’t the project almost done? Shirley replied that the project is about 90% complete, but there’s still a lot of work to be done. There’s also renovation that needs to occur in the older jail, he said.

Wes Prater expressed dismay at the number of change orders and add-ons, saying he’d never seen anything like it. He contended that some of the items should have been covered by the original bid, and said he planned to look through the list in more detail and ask questions. He hoped the county was holding back payments.

Prater later asked about the approval process for change orders. He was told that they are all reviewed and approved by the public safety and justice oversight committee.

Shirley told commissioners that 86% of the project has been paid for so far.

Other Working Session Topics

Two other presentations were made during the May 20 working session: 1) A report by officials of the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) on infrastructure issues for the region, and 2) a briefing by staff of the county’s economic development and energy office, regarding tracking of the county’s energy usage and a potential energy-related pilot project. The Chronicle may address these presentations in a separate report.

Commissioners present: Barbara Bergman, Leah Gunn, Jeff Irwin, Kristin Judge, Mark Ouimet, Ronnie Peterson, Jessica Ping, Wes Prater, Ken Schwartz, Rolland Sizemore Jr.

Absent: Conan Smith